Author 




Title 



Imprint 



16—47372-3 GPO 



60th Congress, ) SENATE. (Document 

1st Session. X 1 No. 524. 



WILLIAM H. WEBER AND JOHN HADDOW 



Mr. Culberson presented the following 

PAPERS ON THE IMPRISONMENT OF WILLIAM H. WEBER AND 
JOHN HADDOW FOR ALLEGED CONTEMPT OF COURT, AND 
THEIR PARDON BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



May 27, 1908.— Ordered to be printed 



United States circuit court, western district of New York, in equity. 

The Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, com- 
plainant, against the Switchmen's Union of North America, Buffalo 
Lodge, No. 4, of the Switchmen's Union of North America, William 
Jordan as president of Buffalo Lodge, No. 4, of the Switchmen's 
Union of North America, F. T. Hawley, Robert W. Flynn, S. E. 
Heberling, E. D. Jackson, M. R. Welch, F. M. Cassidy, D. A. 
Harshbarger (whose first names are unknown) ; John Doe and 
Richard Roe. 

An application having this day been made to this court for an 
injunction during the pendency of this suit, and upon reading and 
filing the bill of complaint herein duly verified, and the affidavit of 
Charles J. Phillips, duly verified this day, together with the exhibits 
appended thereto, and after hearing Mr. Louis L. Babcock, as counsel 
for the complainant in support of said motion, and it appearing, after 
due deliberation thereon, that the complainant is entitled to a 
temporary injunction herein restraining the defendants herein and 
all other persons from any of the acts herein specified. 

Now, upon motion of Rogers, Locke & Babcock, solicitors for the 
complainant, it is 

Ordered, That the above-named defendants, the Switchmen's 
Union of North America, Buffalo Lodge, No. 4, of the Switchmen's 
Union of North America, William Jordan as president of Buffalo 
Lodge, No. 4, of the Switchmen's Union of North America, F. T. 
Hawley, Robert W. Flynn, S. E.- Heberling, E. D. Jackson, M. R. 
Welch, F. M. Cassidy, D. A. Harshbarger (whose first names are 
unknown); John Doe and Richard Roe and each thereof, be enjoined 
and restrained from combining and conspiring each with the other or 
with any other person, to induce the switchmen employed by the 
orator at various places along its line, including the city of Buffalo 
and points in the vicinity thereof, to violate the contract set forth 
in the bill of complaint herein restraining them and each of their 



8-J54-*^ 



2 WILLIAM H. WEBER AND JOHN HADDOW ;/ ~ r\^ ^?CL%> 

agents, servants, employees, and all others acting for the defendants, 
or either or any of them; from compelling or inducing or attempting 
to compel or induce by threats, intimidation, persuasion, or other- 
wise, any of the employees of the orator employed at switching in the 
city of Buffalo, or elsewhere, under said contract of employment, to 
refuse or fail to do their work or discharge their duties as such 
emploj^ees, or to leave the service of the orator, or from preventing 
or attempting to prevent any person or persons by threats, intimida- 
tion, .or unlawful persuasion from freely entering into the service or 
employment of the orator, or from compelling or inducing, or attempt- 
ing to compel or induce in any manner whatever, any person or per- 
sons being a member of the said grand lodge or subordinate lodge 
referred to in 'the bill of complaint herein from assisting or aiding the 
orator in the conduct of its business, or from doing any act whatever 
in furtherance of any conspiracy or combination to restrain or 
obstruct the operation or business of the orator, or from inducing or 
attempting to induce in any manner whatever any of the switchmen 
employed by the orator in the city of Buffalo, or elsewhere, who are 
at the present time members of the Switchmen's Union of North 
America, or the Buffalo Lodge, No. 4, of the Switchmen's Union of 
North America, or who were on the first day of January, 1907, mem- 
bers of either of said lodges, from quitting the service of the orator, 
or from doing any act whatsoever, either personally or through their 
agents, servants, representatives, or employees, to induce any one 
in the service of the orator to break or breach his or their contract 
of employment with the said orator. 

It is further ordered that the defendants and each of them show 
cause before me at the chambers of this court in the post-ofhce build- 
ing in the city of Buffalo, on the 26th day of November, 1907, at the 
opening of court on that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can 
be heard, why the temporary injunction herein granted should not be 
continued during the pendency of this action. Service of this in- 
junction shall be sufficient if made upon the defendants on or before 
the 23d day of November, 1907. 

Dated November 18, 1907. 

John R. Hazel, 

United States Judge. 

The President of the United States of America to the Switchmen's 
Union of North America; Buffalo Lodge No. 4, of the Switchmen's 
Union of North America; William Jordan, as president of Buffalo 
Lodge No. 4, of the Switchmen's Union of North America; F. T. 
Hawley, Robert W. Flynn, S. E. Heberling, E. D. Jackson, M. R. 
Welch, F. M. Cassidy, D. A. Harshbarger (whose first names are 
unknown) ; John Doe and Richard Roe, greeting. 

You are hereby commanded that you personally appear before the 
judges of the circuit court of the United States for the western dis- 
trict of New York, in the second circuit,, on the first Monday in Janu- 
ary, 1908, to answer to a bill of complaint exhibited against you in 
said court by the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Com- 
pany, and to do further and receive whatever said court shall have 
considered in that behalf, and this you are not to omit under the 
penalty of $250. 






3 | 

or a 



WILLIAM H. WEBER AND JOHJS HADDOW. 3 

Witness the Hon. Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the United 
States of America, at the city of Buffalo, in said western district of 
New York, this 18th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1907. 

[seal.] Harris S. Williams, Clerk. 

Rogers, Locke & Babcock, 

Solicitors for Complainant. 

Memorandum. — The defendant is to enter his appearance in the 
suit above mentioned in the clerk's office at Buffalo on or before the 
day at which the above subpoena is returnable, otherwise the bill 
may be taken pro confesso. 

Harris S. Williams, Cleric. 



imprisonment of william h. weber and john haddow for 
alleged contempt of court, and their pardon by the presi- 
dent of the united states. 

Department of Justice, 
Washington, D. C.,- April 29, 1902. 
Sir: The petitioners, William H. Weber, John Haddow, Tom 
Braley, Cass Braley, and David Clarkson, after a hearing before Hon. 
Henry C. McDowell, United States district judge for the western 
district of Virginia, were adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and 
on March 25, 1902, were sentenced as follows: William H. Weber 
and John Haddow to be imprisoned in the city jail of Lynchburg, Va., 
for sen months each; Tom Braley to be imprisoned in the county 
jail of Wise County for one month, and Cass Braley and David Clark- 
son to be imprisoned in the county jail of Wise County for two 
months each. 

A petition for their pardon was filed on April 18. It was trans- 
mitted from the White House with the following letter from the Sec- 
retary to the President : 

The President considers the case referred to in the accompanying papers a very 
important one, and directs me to ask that you send him a full and careful report upon it , 
so that he may consider it from the standpoint not only of law but of general policy. 

The petition is signed for the five petitioners by their attorneys. 
The petition recites the conviction and sentences, and makes a state- 
ment of facts briefly as follows: A mining operation in Wise County, 
Va., known as the Looney Creek lease, is in the hands of receivers 
appointed by the United States circuit court in the suit of the Norton 
Trust Company of New York v. The Virginia Iron, Coal and Coke 
Company. In February, 1901, an injunction was issued by the late 
Judge Paul restraining certain parties named, and "all other parties 
who may be hereafter ascertained, " from going upon the property, 
interfering with the management of the receivers, etc., Tins injunc- 
tion having been granted in vacation by a district judge, ceased to be 
operative at the next ensuing term of the circuit court, which began 
in May, 1901. In October, 1901, Circuit Judge Simonton issued an 
order addressed to John Haddow and William Weber, enjoining them 
"from any interference with the employees of the receivers so as to 
affect the conduct of the business <>1 the receivers." On March 12, 
1902, Weber and Haddow were arrested on the charge of being in con- 



4 WILLIAM H. WEBER AND JOHN HADDOW. 

tempt of court, in disobeying the order, and on March 13 rules were 
issued against the other three petitioners, miners who had been work- 
ing at the Looney Creek lease. 

On March 17 the defendants were put on trial, and on March 25 
the judge delivered a written opinion, and sentenced the petitioners 
as hereinbefore stated. The contempt proceedings were founded 
upon a petition of the receivers, filed March 12, and the only speci- 
fication against the defendants was that on March 10 a body of 150 
armed men marched upon the property of the receivers, exhibited 
firearms in a threatening manner, ordered the employees to quit 
work, etc. Weber and Haddow were charged with being the organiz- 
ers of this armed force. Petitioners claim that it developed upon 
the trial that*this claim had no shadow of foundation. It was fur- 
ther alleged in the petition of the receivers that notices bearing 
the impress of the United Mine Workers, and calling upon the 
men to quit work and intimidating them, had been posted by the 
direction of Weber and Haddow. It is alleged that the originals 
were written on small scraps of letter paper in pencil, in a crude hand, 
and were hardly legible. The testimony shows that a notice similar 
to those quoted in the petition was put up at one of the mines by Cass 
Braley on March 10. The evidence tended to show that a similar 
notice was put up at another mine by David Clarkson on March 10. 
No threats were made by either man. 

According to the testimony of Joseph Virgin, superintendent of the 
operation, the disturbance at the mines under his charge culminated 
on March 10, after these notices had been posted. "Mr. Virgin esti- 
mates the number of men who were deterred from working at about 
100. No other witness testified that the notices had any such effect, 
and not one of the 100 men who, as Mr. Virgin says, were deterred 
from going to work was introduced as a witness. Of the 21 Hunga- 
rians referred to, one named Joe Zubric, a man too ignorant of the 
English language to give intelligible testimony, stated that the Hunga- 
rians had stopped work "because somebody forming the union scared 
to go to work, scared; somebody scared them; shoot them if they 
went to work." In the petition it is claimed that the evidence shows 
that one of the notices was put up by Cass Braley and another was 
put up by David Clarkson, but neither of these men did or threatened 
any act of violence or used any means of intimidation. Tom Braley, 
when the notices were put up, was not even a member of the union. 
Neither Weber nor Haddow ever saw or heard of the notices until 
put upon trial at Lynchburg. No other specific charges were made 
in the petition of the receivers upon which the prosecution was based. 

It was brought out in evidence that in October or November Weber 
stated to the company's hired detective, Baldwin, that he had vio- 
lated and intended to violate the injunction. The same detective 
testified that he knew of no act of disturbance by Weber. And he 
also testified that Weber told him he did not want any employee to 
raise any disturbance or to give any trouble. Weber, in his testi- 
mony upon trial, explained what he meant by the statement that he 
had violated the injunction and would again violate it, meaning that 
the order of the court was so sweeping that he could not breathe the 
air that blew over the mines without violating the order, and that in 
that sense alone he had violated it and would have to violate it again. 



WILLIAM H. WEBER AND JOHN HADDOW. 5 

In the petition the following paragraph from the opinion of the 
court is quoted : 

The witness (Baldwin) testified that Weber told him he had violated the order of 
October 26. 1901. and intended to violate it. This witness had no interest to misstate 
the truth in that respect. 

It was further brought out in evidence that on Sunday, March 2, 
Weber and Haddow addressed a meeting in the open air. All the 
testimony showed that the meeting was quiet ancl orderly. There 
was no proof that any man quit work in consequence of anything 
said or done at the meeting. Other points brought out in the testi- 
mony and opinion of the court, which do not seem material to the 
cause, are touched upon in the petition. It is alleged that Weber 
and Haddow had never been upon the property of the receiver, but 
had carefully refrained from going on it, or from doing any act Or 
uttering any words that might be considered as a violation of the 
law. No offense was proven against Cass Braley and David Clarkson, 
except that the first named put up one of the notices at one of the 
mines and called the attention of some of the men to it, and the 
other put up one of the notices at another mine. No threat was 
uttered by either of them, nor was any trouble or disturbance caused 
by either of them. They were too poor to attend court in response 
to the rule issued against them, and were tried and condemned in 
their absence. 

As to Tom Brale}", it is claimed in the petition that the testimony 
utterly fails to connect him with any disturbance or trouble at the 
mines. He had been a faithful laborer at the mine for three years, 
and on Monday, March 10, was discharged by the superintendent 
without cause, without a word of explanation, and at a time when 
he was not a member of the union. The only evidence introduced 
against him was a conversation which he had with John Camp, a 
foreman on the yard engine, and with Henderson Morris; an em- 
ployee of the mines. It is alleged that counsel for the prosecution 
admitted in open court that Tom Braley was "a manly fellow, and 
in his testimony had spoken the truth, and nothing but the truth." 
It is therefore claimed that his version of the conversation may be 
accepted as the truth. 

It is argued in the petition that the evidence very clearly shows 
that the true cause of whatever trouble occurred at the mining 
operation was the active and aggressive opposition of Mine Superin- 
tendent Virgin to the formation of a labor union among the miners. 
For months he had emploj^ed detectives, seeking some pretext upon 
which he could invoke the aid of the court. He declared Ms policy 
was to discharge all men who joined the union, and in pursuance of 
this policy he began on Monday morning, March 3, to discharge union 
men, and continued to discharge them, with the result that on Wed- 
nesday, March 5, the force of workmen at mine No. 3 had been so 
depleted and demoralized that he gave instructions to close the mine 
down indefinitely. The men whom he discharged were among the 
most efficient that he had, as testified to by the foreman of the mine, 
and their sole offense was that they had joined the union. Under 
such harsh and oppressive treatment the men inevitably became 
restless, discontented, and demoralized, and the result that followed 
on the 10th of March was the natural consequence of the carrying 



6 WILLIAM H. WEBER AND JOHN HADDOW. 

out of the superintendent's policy. Up to that time there had been 
no disturbance, and no miner had voluntarily quit work. The 
petitioners thereupon enter upon a discussion of the legal features 
of the case, which will be found upon pages 10-13 of the petition. 

In conclusion it is alleged that the United Mine Workers is one 
of the great labor organizations of this country; and if the United 
Mine Workers is a lawful organization, as it undoubtedly is, there is 
no warrant in the evidence in this case for punishing Weber and 
Haddow for any unlawful acts that may have been done by mem- 
bers of the local lodge at Appalachia, of which lodge neither of them 
was a member. Their sole offense was that they were members of 
the union and were attempting to organize local lodges in that 
section of Virginia. Foregoing is a brief of petition for pardon. 

A copy of the petition of the receivers, upon which the prosecu- 
tion was based, has been filed. It is alleged that for the last six 
months or more Weber and Haddow have been attempting to inter- 
fere in the relations existing between the receivers and the em- 
ployees; that until recently these two men and others whom they 
have associated with themselves have been shrewd enough not to 
resort to any open violence or threats of open violence, but within 
the last few days they have thrown off all restraint and have resorted 
to open threats of violence. 

Certain specific acts are alleged to have been committed. First, 
it is alleged that on Monday, March 10, a large force of armed men, 
numbering more than 150, assembled upon and around the receivers' 
property, exhibiting firearms in a most threatening manner, and 
declaring that they propose to stop the operations of the receivers. 
It is alleged that Weber and Haddow were the prime movers and 
instigators of the disturbances above mentioned, and that they 
advised and instructed some of the men "to make their guns their 
best friends." It is alleged that Henry Dodson, David Clarkson, 
Tom Braley, Cass Braley, and M. H. Patton are some of the men 
whom Weber and Haddow had associated with them in the unlawful 
acts complained of. This petition is verified by one J. L. Brass, 
who states under oath "that the matters and things contained in the 
foregoing petition, so far as stated upon his own knowledge, are true, 
and so far as they are stated upon information derived from others 
he believes them to be true." The said J. L. Brass gave no testimony 
as a witness in the proceedings in this case. 

There was also filed an order and decree entered by Judge McDowell 
on March 17, ordering the arrest of Haddow and Weber, and ordering 
the other persons named in the petition of the receivers to refrain from 
going upon the premises of the receivers. 

There is also a copy of an attachment and rule issued against the 
defendants in this case other than Weber and Haddow. 

There is also filed a copy of the opinion of the court, which is paper 
No. 7. The proceedings in the receivership case are recited, and it is 
admitted that the order of Judge Paul, issued February 12, 1901, 
ceased to be operative in May, 1901. That in October, 1901, the cir- 
cuit judge issued an injunction directed to Weber and Haddow by 
name. It is stated that Weber and Haddow admitted that they are 
officers of the United Mine Workers of America, and that they came 
to Virginia in October, 1901, and March, 1902, for the purpose of 
organizing lodges among the mine workers. It is stated in the opin- 



WILLIAM H. WEBER AND JOHN HADDOW. 7 

ion that the right of employees to voluntarily join a union that lias 
only legal purposes in view can not be denied, but if the object of the 
union is illegal it appears to be well settled that the persons who com- 
bine in such efforts are conspirators. Further in the opinion it is said : 

In the first place, it is hardly open to serious question that the ultimate purpose of 
the union is nut legal. Its purpose is to secure control of mining op< rations, including 
those under the management of the receivers of this court. 

In the opinion it is stated that two of the defendants. Cass Braley 
and David Clark (or Clarkson), are proved to have been members of 
the union and to have posted some of the notices suspending the 
works, and argument is made against the contention of the defense 
that Weber and Haddow had nothing to do with the illegal acts 
traced to certain members of the union. It is further said: 

But the act of the union in ordering coke pullers and loaders to stop work is in itself 
a direct contravention of the order of this court directing the receivers to operate the 
plant. In other words, such acts are illegal. 

Reference is made to the addresses of the defendants Weber and 
Haddow at the meeting on Sunday, March 2, and it is stated by the 
court that "at that meeting much that was said by these organizers 
was proper and unobjectionable." It is then said that intimations 
were thrown out that if the men did not join the union the product 
of the mines might be boycotted and the nonunion workers would 
be blacklisted. Reference is made to other testimony that a plan 
had been formed by Weber and Haddow to march a body of men to 
the Stonega mining plant, a plant located near the property of the 
receivers, but that the plan failed because of some accident. The 
mining plant at Stonega is not in the hands of the receivers. 

The language of the opinion, whether intentionally or uninten- 
tionally, creates the impression that the plant was in the hands of the 
receivers. 

It is then argued that Weber and Haddow, having intended to 
march the force of men to Stonega, which intention was not accom- 
plished, could not therefore be ignorant of the intention of their con- 
federates at the Inman plant to adopt similar methods of intimida- 
tion. Reference is also made to the statements alleged to have been 
made by Weber to a newspaper reporter, and the court states that 
no satisfactory denial of the correctness of the interview was made. 

The petition in this case was referred to Judge McDowell on April 
18, and his reply was received April 28. He says he thinks that the 
order made by the court in this contempt proceedings is reviewable 
by the circuit court of appeals, and he therefore thinks the pro- 
priety of a pardon in a reviewable case is open to question. He says 
that as to the merits of the case he can add very little to the opinion. 
He says that Tom Braley was found guilty largely on the testimony 
of Camp, the foreman of the yard engine. He says that Cass Braley 
and Clarkson were certainly active agents of the union. He con- 
cludes: 

Weber and Haddow were, I thought and still think, the chief inciters of an intol- 
erable state of intimidation and lawlessness, who knowingly violated the order of 
Judge Paul (directing the receivers to operate the plant' and of Judge Simonton 
(addressed to Weber and Haddow by name). 

A complete transcript of the testimony in this case has been filed, 
and I have prepared a brief of the same. After a careful study of t bis 
testimony I can not find a shadow of evidence which goes to prove that 



8 WILLIAM H. WEBER AND JOHN HADDOW. 

the defendants Weber and Haddow, by any act or word, violated the 
injunction of Judge Simonton issued in October, 1901, unless it be 
admitted that the quiet and peaceable efforts of these two men, who 
were duly appointed organizers of the United Mine Workers of Amer- 
ica to organize lodges among the miners of Virginia be a violation of 
the injunction. The only effort upon the part of the prosecution to 
show a violation was the testimony of Detective Baldwin, who was in 
the employ of the receivers. Baldwin testifies that Weber admitted 
to him that he had violated the injunction and would continue to do 
so. The defendant Weber admits having made this statement to the 
detective, and explains it by saying that when he made the statement 
to the detectiVe he also stated that he meant that the injunction was 
so broad that even the breathing of the air which blew across the prop- 
erty in the hands of the receivers would be a violation of the injunc- 
tion. 

The detective admits that he was on most friendly terms with 
Haddow and Weber; that they knew that he was employed to watch 
them and report their doings, and he states that he never discovered 
any act on the part of either of these defendants which he thought 
necessary to report, excepting only the alleged admission by Weber 
that he had violated and intended to violate the injunction. He 
admits that Weber did not specify in what manner he had violated or 
intended to violate it. It seems utterly improbable that Weber, 
knowing the capacity in which this detective was employed, would 
have used the language attributed to him, except in the sense ex- , 
plained by him. One of the specific acts charged against the defend- 
ants to show that they violated the injunction, attempted to be 
proved in the contempt hearings, was that Weber and Haddow had 
instigated a large force of armed men to march upon the property of 
the receivers on March 10 for the purpose of intimidating the miners 
at work and causing them to leave the employ of the receivers. The 
testimony introduced upon this point by the prosecution is not only 
conflicting in all its material points, but there is not a syllable of tes- 
timony which in any manner whatsoever connects Weber and Haddow 
with the movement. Belcher, the policeman who assisted in the 
arrest of the defendants, testifies that he saw between 30 and 50 men 
go upon the property of the company upon March 10 and go by the 
commissary up toward the mines. He says he does not know whether 
this party was armed or not, and testifies that he saw no arms. He 
says that many of them were going in the direction of their homes, 
their houses being up beyond the commissary on the company 
property. 

Joseph Virgin, superintendent of operations, in the employ of the 
receivers, says that this party of men who marched upon the property 
upon March 10 came in three sections, consisting, approximately, of 
150, 128, and 114 men, aggregating 392, of whom about three-fourths 
stopped at and around the commissary, and about one-fourth passed 
the commissary and went on toward the mines. He says that 4 or 5 
of the men were armed with shotguns or rifles and others with pistols. 
He says that the presence of these men upon the property had no 
effect whatever upon the men who were at work. Being again ques- 
tioned by the prosecution upon this point, he adheres to his statement 
that their presence had no effect upon the men. 



WILLIAM H. WEBER AND JOHN HADDOW. 9 

Frank Miller, then and at present the foreman of the coke plant, 
testifies that he heard some shots fired during the day. He was about 
half a mile from where the shots were fired. His statement, based on 
inference, is that the shots were fired by the crowd that marched 
toward the mine. 

George Walters, then and at present mine foreman, saw a crowd of 
about 50 pass by the commissary on March 10. Some were armed; 
he could not say how many. He saw no shotguns or rifles. Those 
whom he saw armed had pistols. He heard no shooting. He says it 
is a common thing for many of the men to go armed. 

As heretofore stated, there is no testimony whatever connecting 
Haddow or Weber with this movement of a crowd of men, nor is it at 
all clearly proved that the men marched there with any purpose in 
view. A reasonable supposition to be drawn from the testimony is 
that these men had been attending a peaceable meeting of the miners' 
union and were returning to their homes. Concerning the other de- 
fendants, Belcher, the policeman, says that Tom and Cass Braley 
and David Clarkson were in the crowd that marched past the com- 
missar}^ on March 10. Joseph Virgin, the superintendent of opera- 
tions, says that Cass Braley and David Clarkson were in the crowd, 
but he does not remember having seen Tom Braley there. Virgin 
also testifies that Cass Braley admitted to him that he posted the 
notices calling the miners to come out. Frank Miller testifies that 
Cass Brale}" frequently came to the mines, but witness never saw him 
attempt to take off any men. David Clarkson did some organizing 
work. B. Williams saw Cass Braley at the mines on March 10, but 
did not see him do anything. Neither Cass nor Tom Brale} r ever 
attempted to induce witness to join the union. 

R. L. Cooper saw Cass Braley at mine No. 4 on March 10, and saw 
him point to the notices posted and ask the men to come out. Wit- 
ness does not know David Clarkson, but saw one Clark, called David 
Clark, post one of the notices. He did not hear Cass Braley make any 
threats. He had known the latter ever since he had been working at 
the mines, and knew him to be always a quiet and orderly man. 
Joseph Virgin testified that the names Clark and Clarkson are used 
indiscriminately in that region. 

George Walters saw Cass Braley on the property on March 10, and 
he was armed. Tom Braley was in the crowd that came to the com- 
missary. He does not know whether David Clarkson was in the 
crowd or not. 

Joe Zubric, a Hungarian, knows Cass Braley. Braley never told 
witness to quit work. A negro named Austin advised witness to stop 
work. 

J. R. Becker says that a number of men had asked him to join the 
union, but none of the defendants had ever asked him to do so. 
David Clarkson was once with a crowd of men who were trying to 
induce the witness to join the union. 

John Camp testified to certain actions ami conversations of Tom 
Braley. Inasmuch as Judge McDowell bases the conviction of Tom 
Braley entirely upon the testimony of this witness Camp, I respect- 
fully refer you to the testimony of Camp, at pages 80-82 of the trans- 
cript of testimony and at page 20 of the brief of testimony. This 
witness John Camp testified in brief that he was locomotive fireman 
at the works, and that on March 10 Tom Braley passed him and said 
S. Doc. 524, 60-1 2 



10 WILLIAM H. WEBEE AND JOHN HADDOW. 

that witness could run the engine that day but could not run it the 
next day. He says Braley said nothing to him about any boycotting. 
He says that he and Tom Braley were good friends and frequently 
joked each other. 

Braley' s explanation of the conversation is that he had been dis- 
charged by the superintendent without cause or reason, and after 
being discharged he passed Camp and shouted to him something the 
effect of which was that he, Braley, had been discharged and that 
Camp would probably get his discharge pretty soon. 

W. R. Clerk testifies that he heard Tom Braley ask a man named 
Morris to quit* work. He also heard a man named Leedy ask Morris 
to quit work, and Tom Braley was present at the time. 

Dan Reynolds heard Cass Braley admit to Mr. Virgin that he had 
posted one of the notices. 

The detective, Baldwin, testified that he had shadowed Weber and 
Haddow for six or eight months, and that other detectives of his 
agency were employed by the receivers to watch these two men, and 
that so far as witness knows they were never discovered in any act 
violating the orders of the court. 

The contention of the defendants that all the trouble was brought 
about by the attitude of Virgin, the superintendent, in discharging 
all union men, seems to be well borne out by the testimony, especially 
by the testimony of Virgin himself, and of Witness George Kilgore, 
foreman of mine No. 3. The latter' s testimony begins at page 31 of 
the brief of testimony and at page 135 of the transcript of testimony, 

J. F. Bullitt, esq., of the the firm of Bullett, Kelly & Hull, who were 
of counsel for the prosecution, has filed a copy of his argument before 
the court in this case, and also a brief of argument of his firm, to which 
is attached a pencil-written abstract of the testimony. 

The papers are herewith. ■ 

Respectfully, J. S. Easby-Smith, 

Pardon Attorney. 

The Attorney-General. 



[In the matter of the application for pardon of William Weber et al.] 

Office of the Attorney-General, 

Washington, D. C, May 6, 1902. 
The President: The facts in this case are fully set forth in the 
accompanying brief of the pardon attorney. 

I am unwilling to base a recommendation on seeming acquiescence 
in the view of the court that the ultimate purpose of the union (the 
United Mine Workers) is not legal; and it is proper to express the 
belief that the difficulties at the mine were aggravated hj the arbitrary 
discharge of union workmen. Nevertheless I do not intend by this 
statement to pass upon the final judicial finding of fact that con- 
tempt was committed. 

Under all circumstances, and especially in view of the punishment 
already suffered, I recommend that as an act of Executive grace the 
application for pardon be granted. 

P. C. Knox, 

Attorney-General. 



william h. weber and john haddow. 11 

Department of Justice, 

February 27, 1906. 
Pursuant to the act of Congress of March 5, 1872, I hereby certify 
that the annexed paper is a true copy of the original warrant for the 
pardon of William Weber on file in this office. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal 
of the Department of Justice to be affixed, on the day and year first 
above written. 
[seal.] William H. Moody, 

Attorney-General. 



Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, to all 
to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 

Whereas William Weber was charged with a contempt of the 
United States circuit court for the western district of Virginia, and 
after a hearing before Hon. Henry C. McDowell, United States circuit 
judge for the western district of Virginia, was adjudged guilty, and 
on March 25, 1902, sentenced to imprisonment for six months in the 
city jail of Lynchburg, Va.; and 

Whereas it has been made to appear to me that the said William 
Weber is a fit object of Executive clemency: 

Now therefore be it known that I, Theodore Roosevelt, President 
of the United States of America, in consideration of the premises, 
divers other good and sufficient reasons me thereunto moving, do 
hereby grant unto the said William Weber a full and unconditional 
pardon. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto signed my name and caused 
the seal of the Department of Justice to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington this 6th day of May, A. D. 1902, 
and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and 
twenty-sixth. 

T. Roosevelt. 

By the President: i 

[seal.] , P. C. Knox, Attorney-General. 

O 






W\ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

018 702 759 7 { 




